11 minutes ago, poita said:

Does this club do any due diligence when it looks at experienced recruits? Or does we just throw long term contracts and blank cheques at anybody who takes our calls?

Clark, Dawes, Lumumba, Melksham, and Hibberd all in the past 6 years. Drug cheats, sociopaths, broken down hacks, and who knows what else.

The ridiculous contract (and equally ridiculous trade deal) for Melksham looks dumber every day. Not only is he a liability on the field, but he is developing a pattern of dumb behaviour off the field which reflects poorly on both him and the club.

A month at Casey, where he should be already, seems a fair punishment.

 

Selective much? You seem to have forgotten Cross, Vince, Garlett, Frost, Bugg, Lewis and Pedersen (and others). Sure, not every trade is a winner, but neither is every new draft choice.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Selective much? You seem to have forgotten Cross, Vince, Garlett, Frost, Bugg, Lewis and Pedersen (and others). Sure, not every trade is a winner, but neither is every new draft choice.

No they're not.

Nor can you dilute a particular instance always as a condition of a greater whole.

Melksham was brought in to better us. I say that as surely thats a given with any player, otherwise why would you ?

I dont see how he's bettering us.

I doubt hell ever provide us with any highlights reels of note.

He may well have 33 chums there in that.

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

Irrespective of questions of  Melksham footy credentials, hasn't he been punished enough? Has nothing to do with football matters. He has lost his account, received a substantial fine and media shame. Some people think punishment and humiliation should be continuously applied like layers on a cake. People that think this way would no doubt relish a public flogging also. 

Well when you're in the business he's in it comes with the territory. Like it or not.

Don't want the scrutiny, don't do silly things.

There's but one arena for atonement.

We wait, though not all with held breath, but awaiting none the less.

17 hours ago, ProDee said:

A minor issue.

Charlie Dixon has a glass of red wine the night before a game and he's front page of the Herald Sun and suspended by his club.  The AFL would happily pepperspray the likes of Jack Crisp for a $10 multi.  Others convulse in anger over Hogan having a dart on a weekend off, as if he's some sort of nicotine addict.  Fans lamenting drafting Melksham over a trivial betting indiscretion involving his account (sure, they also think he can't play footy).

Meanwhile, Ben Cousins is a mess and never tested positive for illegal drug use and first time offenders are protected from public vilification.  

Somewhere, there's an imbalance.

 

 

To be fair we are lamenting recruiting Melksham because he's not a very good player. 

25 minutes ago, Jaded said:

To be fair we are lamenting recruiting Melksham because he's not a very good player. 

You obviously haven't read all of the posts.

And to be fair, I covered your angle anyway.

The outcome might be minor, but why would you place yourslef under that sort of scrutiny. Can't be the sharpest tool in the shed

He was doing absolutely nothing wrong the way I see it.. He has been real stiff here..

If he wasn't betting on footy he should have zero to answer for? Why are they even asking him questions if he hasn't had any bets on footy?

I must be missing something here as I find this whole thing crazy..

What's the bet his mate will fork out the money anyway.. Must go alright if he can't have his own account..

 

28 minutes ago, CatFishPig said:

He was doing absolutely nothing wrong the way I see it.. He has been real stiff here..

If he wasn't betting on footy he should have zero to answer for? Why are they even asking him questions if he hasn't had any bets on footy?

I must be missing something here as I find this whole thing crazy..

What's the bet his mate will fork out the money anyway.. Must go alright if he can't have his own account..

 

I'm just guessing here, but every betting operator has as agreement with the AFL. I suspect the agreement requires the betting companies to notify the AFL of any suspicious activity. I further suspect that the betting operator noticed suspicious activity with Melksham's account - perhaps betting in amounts different to Melksham's traditional patterns - and notified the AFL. As part of the AFL's process, they probably questioned Melksham about it at which time he provided some misinformation. Perhaps he was protecting someone else. Or maybe he's just not that bright and mislead them accidentally (doubtful, though, given the size of the fine).

6 hours ago, beelzebub said:

No they're not.

Nor can you dilute a particular instance always as a condition of a greater whole.

Melksham was brought in to better us. I say that as surely thats a given with any player, otherwise why would you ?

I dont see how he's bettering us.

I doubt hell ever provide us with any highlights reels of note.

He may well have 33 chums there in that.

"He'll definitely have a big game this year. It'll force you to keep playing him even though you eventually realise those performances are once in a blue moon." Some EFC analysis. Tracking well.

 

Edited April 21, 20178 yr by DominatrixTyson

9 hours ago, Adzman said:

The dees should be fined 10k for giving up pick 25 for Melksham........ That's the real abuse of gambling here.

LOL

7 hours ago, poita said:

Does this club do any due diligence when it looks at experienced recruits? Or does we just throw long term contracts and blank cheques at anybody who takes our calls?

Clark, Dawes, Lumumba, Melksham, and Hibberd all in the past 6 years. Drug cheats, sociopaths, broken down hacks, and who knows what else.

The ridiculous contract (and equally ridiculous trade deal) for Melksham looks dumber every day. Not only is he a liability on the field, but he is developing a pattern of dumb behaviour off the field which reflects poorly on both him and the club.

A month at Casey, where he should be already, seems a fair punishment.

 

Yet he is not named in the Casey squad for the weekend, meaning he is either going to continue to occupy 1/22 of our list v Tigers, or he is out with a "mystery illness" or less likely under a club suspension.

3 hours ago, CatFishPig said:

He was doing absolutely nothing wrong the way I see it.. He has been real stiff here..

If he wasn't betting on footy he should have zero to answer for? Why are they even asking him questions if he hasn't had any bets on footy?

I must be missing something here as I find this whole thing crazy..

What's the bet his mate will fork out the money anyway.. Must go alright if he can't have his own account..

 

It's to do with sponsorships and brand image for the AFL and clubs. Him letting his mate have a bet on a greyhounds race is non-issue and that's why the club has treated it as such and said there will be no punishment. Storm in a tea-cup and we move on. Hopefully he has a good game against the Tigers and works with in tandem with Hibberd!

Caro's latest article posted an hour ago puts some perspective on this. Explains who was using his account and why. Shows that he wasn't comfortable with the AFL investigation and that his form has dropped the last fortnight as he frets over yet another AFL investigation given the last one he was involved in didn't go so well. Stuart Crameri introduced him to the punter who was using his account.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/jake-melksham-affair-underlines-afls-fraught-relationship-with-gambling-20170421-gvpt6c.html

It's not even clear that he lied rather than 'omitted.' Can the lawyers on here offer a run-down as to the AFL's jurisdiction on this matter and the extent of their investigative and punitive powers? What if he had refused to co-operate outright? And have the AFL breached any responsibilities to advise Melksham to seek counsel prior to the initial interview?

10 hours ago, Older demon said:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/jake-melksham-affair-underlines-afls-fraught-relationship-with-gambling-20170421-gvpt6c.html

Its scary that it refers to 75% of children thinking gambling is a normal part of sport. 

I guess it is no wonder when the AFL's education paper (for non-sports betting) to community football clubs says:  " Don't think of gambling as a way to make money,"...Think of gambling as an entertainment expense," it continues, "just like buying a movie ticket." http://www.theage.com.au/afl/the-afl-and-gambling-ads-a-question-of-value-20170421-gvprwx.html 

Its laughable to think that 'education paper' would discourage gambling in sport!  I can't even think of any gambling that isn't on sport.

That article also spells out the AFL's hypocrisy on gambling.  Effectively, the AFL (along with NRL and Cricket) have heavily lobbied the federal government to water down their proposed restrictions to ban gambling advertising during live sport coverage.  And to a large extent they have succeeded.

Double standards are alive and well!

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Its scary that it refers to 75% of children thinking gambling is a normal part of sport. 

I guess it is no wonder when the AFL's education paper (for non-sports betting) to community football clubs says:  " Don't think of gambling as a way to make money,"...Think of gambling as an entertainment expense," it continues, "just like buying a movie ticket." http://www.theage.com.au/afl/the-afl-and-gambling-ads-a-question-of-value-20170421-gvprwx.html 

Its laughable to think that 'education paper' would discourage gambling in sport!  I can't even think of any gambling that isn't on sport.

That article also spells out the AFL's hypocrisy on gambling.  Effectively, the AFL (along with NRL and Cricket) have heavily lobbied the federal government to water down their proposed restrictions to ban gambling advertising during live sport coverage.  And to a large extent they have succeeded.

Double standards are alive and well!

We are going to have to live with it. Occasional sacrificial offerings like Melksham will be thrown up to maintain the facade of integrity. 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:42 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

Its scary that it refers to 75% of children thinking gambling is a normal part of sport. 

I guess it is no wonder when the AFL's education paper (for non-sports betting) to community football clubs says:  " Don't think of gambling as a way to make money,"...Think of gambling as an entertainment expense," it continues, "just like buying a movie ticket." http://www.theage.com.au/afl/the-afl-and-gambling-ads-a-question-of-value-20170421-gvprwx.html 

Its laughable to think that 'education paper' would discourage gambling in sport!  I can't even think of any gambling that isn't on sport.

That article also spells out the AFL's hypocrisy on gambling.  Effectively, the AFL (along with NRL and Cricket) have heavily lobbied the federal government to water down their proposed restrictions to ban gambling advertising during live sport coverage.  And to a large extent they have succeeded.

Double standards are alive and well!

Is that what you really meant? Or did you mean you couldn't think of any gambling advertising that isn't on sport? Because if you really can't think of any gambling that isn't on sport, you really need to get out more. Like, go to a casino, play the pokies, buy a lotto ticket, have a bet on the horses or the greyhounds. Or buy an MFC raffle ticket next time they're being offered.